A Kerry Nomination Leaves No Margin for Error

[scheming daemons]

John Kerry cannot win a single southern state with the exception of possibly Florida.

That would be enough to win, assuming he got all the other states that Gore won.

But it leaves absolutely no margin for error.


There is no state that John Kerry would win that John Edwards wouldn't also win... but the opposite is not true.

Edwards would win all the states that Kerry would win... and possibly TN, FL, NC, VA, LA, and MO.

Think about it... what state would Kerry win that Edwards WOULDN'T?

If you are honest with yourself, the answer is none.

Kerry can win, but he leaves us no margin for error. A Kerry win would be somewhere in the 270 to 290 electoral vote range. Edwards could win up to 330-340 electoral votes.

If you Kerry people were REALLY as pragmatic as advertised, you'd be Edwards supporters.

(and no crap about a Kerry/Edwards ticket. NOBODY votes based on the VP candidate.)

[bain_sidhe]

1. No, if Kerry people were *really* as pragmatic as advertised

they'd be Clark supporters :evilgrin:

Come'on now, you didn't really think I'd let such an easy pitch go by, did ya? Clark has the "southern" appeal PLUS the veteran appeal PLUS the "executive experience" appeal PLUS he's the only one of all the candidates running (including Bush) who's actually won a war!

[scheming daemons]

2. You're right...

My post about Edwards very nearly could be said about Clark as well.

Clark and Edwards are the only ones who can run well in the whole country.

The only reason I prefer Edwards is that I think we'll need the Clinton "gender gap" to put us over the top.

If my wife is any indication, Edwards would win in a landslide among women.

Kerry is one of those rare politicians who actually looks OLDER than he really is. He is not aging well. and the first impression most people have about a candidate is his or her looks.... Remember, half the voters don't follow things closely, they vote on "look and feel".

That's why candidates who've been beaten with the ugly stick have not won in the modern era. Since 1960, the more "attractive" candidate has won the popular vote in every election (including Gore's "win" in 2000).

Is that shallow? Sure it is... but most of the electorate is shallow, unfortunately. Herman Munster look-alikes like Kerry will lose EVERY time... even to a candidate that looks like a chimp.

[isbister]

3. look and feel

and what do they say about Kerry... He looks Presidential

and since we're going shallow here, Kerry is taller than bush and he will make that little man look small

[Duncan Grant]

4. Currently, Kerry is the frontrunner.

In any negotiation, those with the most power and influence determine the outcome. What motivation do Kerry supporters have (at this time) to entertain such a hypothesis?

Your post is more thoughtful than most around here but my guess is that Kerry supporters are riding high and are not too receptive to another candidate (rightly so).

You write:

>>If you Kerry people were REALLY as pragmatic as advertised, you'd be Edwards supporters.<<

No offense intended but your arguement falls apart there. Good luck with the Edwards campaign! I don't doubt that he's a viable candidate -- it's just a bit early for this type of brokering (imho).

edit: typo

[David Dunham]

5. Edwards Could Lose Northern States, as Carter Did in 1976 and 1980

Edwards, who has a distinct Carolinian accent and is a southern trial lawyer, does not appeal to northerners as well as Clinton did, or Gore, for that matter. Clinton was a Yale graduate and Gore Harvard.

[dolstein]

12. Not in 2004, and not against Bush

The northeast and northwest are more Democratic than they were 20-25 years ago.

And since you mentioned Clinton and Gore, they did exceptionally well in the North. The only state Gore lost in the northeast was New Hampshire, which Clinton carried twice.

[spooky3]

16. Iowa seemed to like him, though not as much as Kerry.

[jpgray]

6. Ohio, WV, Arizona, NH

Ohio alone, or a combo of these could offset Florida.

Before posting another electoral bit, check this out:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

Not an endorsement of Edwards, but it is a cool electoral map you can mess with. It has the 2004 census update on it, as well (Arizona 10, etc.).

[jpgray]

11. Plus, I can't imagine Bush getting MORE votes than in 2000

None of our candidates are that bad.

[dolstein]

17. Well there's your problem

I'm sure many Democrats couldn't imagine Reagan getting more votes in 1984 than he did in 1980. Well, they were wrong.

And any DU'er who assumes that Bush maxes out at 48% of the vote is dead wrong. DU'ers have routinely underestimated Gore's strength in 2000. So did the press. Gore had advantages that none of the current Democrats will have. Believe me, if the Democrats nominate Kerry or Dean, Bush will get considerably more than 48% of the vote.

[spooky3]

19. I agree that we should NOT underestimate Bush's appeal nor the #s of

people who like him. We are in for a dogfight no matter who is nominated.

[DoctorBombay]

22. Are you accounting for Nader factor?

If Ralphie does not run this year (and even if he does), SOME, not all, but quite a bit of the votes he got are going to go to whomever we nominate. There are going to be some ABBers out of that group. I have to think that is going to offset Bush getting more swing votes than in 2000, and I'm not sure I buy that right now.

Incidentally, if we only flip Nevada and New Hampshire, the two most likely red states to switch, and everything else stays the same, it would result in a 269-269 tie.

[sandnsea]

7. There's one whole package

One guy who can go toe to toe with George Bush on ANYTHING. No matter what is going on in here or in the world. That's John Kerry. That's pragmatism.

[bushwakker]

8. I think that Edwards appeal in the south is overstated

He has only been in the Senate for 4 years and is hardly a national or even a regional figure of prominence. If I felt he could hold his own in the south i'd support him right now. But I think his strength there is bit of a myth.

[David Dunham]

20. Edwards Couldn't Even Beat Bush in NC, His Home State

[shoopnyc123]

9. You know what...I don't believe it...

I'm frankly tired of prognostications like this...SOMEBODY in the south has cable! There has been a paradigm shift that the Dean campaign has helped to make apparent. This whole south thing; I ain't buying it.

[creativelcro]

10. You are right!

[quaker bill]

13. While I agree with your general premise about Kerry

I don't think Edwards is the guy to pull it off. Clark or Dean are better choices. There simply is no viable democratic 'southern strategy'.

[dolstein]

15. There's no viable northern strategy

A northern strategy would be next-to-impossible against an equally funded opponent. But Bush will have a lot more money than Kerry.

Gore did not pursue a Northern strategy. He actively competed in several Southern states, and Bush had to spend a fortune to win many of them. With Kerry as our nominee, Bush can focus all his time and money on a handful of northern states.

[spooky3]

18. Here in VA I don't think Dean is going to play well outside of

the DC area. I don't mean to stereotype, but I think it's more the brash New Yorker than the Vermonter (remember that's really his origin) that turns off people here, who tend not to tell you what they're really thinking. And obviously there are many other factors, such as a large number of military people, and not as many jobs lost as in the Midwest.

I think Clark and Edwards and Kerry will do better here, but a lot depends on how much $ and time they spend here. Clark has been running a lot of ads in the DC area.

[dolstein]

14. You are absolutely right

Any electoral strategy that writes off the South leaves very little room for error. Everybody likes to talk about how Gore nearly pulled it off. But people neglect to mention just how competitive Gore was in red states like Nevada, New Hampshire, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida and West Virginia. Even Ohio and Virginia was relatively close. The only red states where Kerry could hope to be competitive in are Nevada, New Hampshire, and possibly Ohio. Arizona is a fantasy -- Clinton carried it in a three way race with only 46% of the vote. Gore's totals were even lower in 2000. There is no way Kerry is going to carry Arizona in a two-man race.

Many will say that Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio are enough. But these people forget that with Bush able to take the South completely for granted, he'll be able to pour all his resources into just a handful of states. John Edwards, on the other hand, will be able to force Bush to work to keep the red states in his column.

[rpf113]

21. I hate to break it to you...

but I believe that polls have indicated that John Edwards wouldn't even win his Senate seat again if he ran. I lived in N.C. for a while and they do not like Edwards there. I don't think Edwards would fare much better in the south than Kerry.

Socially conservative voters would feel much more comfortable with Clark. Because they are basically dimwitted, they will probably vote for him simply cuz he's military.